While the Mail says the ECtHR judgement gave ministers a "six month deadline to amend rules" on prisoner voting, the Star claimed it "paves the way for the UK to keep its 1870 ban on lags taking part in elections."

So what does this controversial judgement actually say?

The applicant in Scoppola v Italy (no. 3) alleged that the removal of his right to vote following a criminal conviction was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights ('the Convention').

The grand chamber found that the restriction on the applicant's rights did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1.

While doing so, it confirmed what the ECtHR decided in the previous case of Hirst (no. 2) v UK that a "general, automatic and indiscriminate" restriction on the right to vote could not be considered an acceptable restriction of prisoners' rights.

Paragraph 102 of the judgment made it clear that states could have a wide margin of discretion over the matter of how to implement the ruling.

The Daily Mail captions contained some inaccuracies. There are for example two references to the EU, despite this being an ECtHR matter (the ECHR is a part of the Council of Europe, a separate body to the EU).

What's more, John Hirst, whose application led to the judgment in Hirst (no.2) above, is referred to as a "convicted axe murderer" (the Daily Mirror made the same mistake). This isn't true — a glance at Hirst (no.2) makes it clear that he was found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, rather than murder.

However, these problems aside the Mail coverage is largely accurate.

The Daily Star report does contain some more glaring errors. It says that the judgment "paves the way for the UK to keep its 1870 ban on lags taking part in elections", and that "the court gave its verdict on a case in Italy and said EU countries should be allowed to reach their own decisions."

As seen above, this isn't really true: the outright ban on prisoner voting in the UK will have to be overturned to some extent if the judgment is properly followed.

Neither is it true that "EU countries" are the only states affected by the judgment, as the Star claims. The Convention applies to 47 states, while the EU has only 27 member states.

So while neither story is without its problems, it does seem that on this occassion the Mail report is nearer the mark on the essentials of the verdict.

Most publications gave some measure of prominence to the issue of the fairly wide margin of discretion given to how states can implement the consequences of Scoppola.

The Daily Star was presumably trying to get to this when it referred to states being "allowed to reach their own decisions".

Overall, though, there's a lot to be pleased about. With that said, it's a shame to see some old mistakes cropping up. The EU is not the same thing as the Council of Europe. It's a shame to see some new ones too — murder isn't the same as manslaughter.

We’re all at risk from bad information.

Stay informed. Sign up to our weekly newsletter.

Covid-19 crisis: we need your help to protect us all from bad information

You’ve probably seen a surge in misleading and unsubstantiated medical advice since the Covid-19 outbreak. If followed, it can put lives at serious risk. We need your help to protect us all from false and harmful information.

We’ve seen people claiming to be health professionals, family members, and even the government – offering dangerous tips like drinking warm water or gargling to prevent infection. Neither of these will work.

The longer claims like these go unchecked, the more they are repeated and believed. It can put people’s health at serious risk, when our services are already under pressure.

Today, you have the opportunity to help save lives. Good information about Covid-19 could be the difference between someone taking the right precautions to protect themselves and their families, or not.

Could you help protect us all from false and harmful information today?